johnfajardohenry wrote:One of the ways it is not superior is in natal care. Look how many thousands of mothers are sent to the US each year to have their babies because there is no hospital for them.

Look at the example 4-5 years ago of the quintuplets. In the entire country of Canada they had not a single facility that could care for them. Instead, the Canadian medical system paid for them to be flown to some dinky town in Wyoming, pop 10,000 or so that did have the facilities.

We are the escape valve that makes the Canadian system work. What will that escape valve no longer exists?

And don't even get me started on comparing infant mortality between countries.

That was not the article that I had in mind but the information is what I was thinking of. I am not as current on this as I should be but back in the 90's when I was teaching about it it was thousands a year. I'll see if I can find some more current info.

Unfortunately, I am in Manhattan this week and my $300/night hotel room's $12/day internet is slower than normal dial up. Why can I stay in a $39 Motel 6 and get free and fast internet but when I stay in a high end hotel it always costs extra and sucks?

I won't get started on infant mortality other than to say that people often claim that we have problems with ours compared to other countries. We might or might not. There is no way to tell because different countries record it differently. The problem is mainly with how they count live births.

In an interview with CBS News, aired on Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reversed himself and got in line with the GOP’s new talking point: That that the individual mandate of the 2010 landmark health-care law is “a tax.”

Huckleby wrote: The health insurers have been evil, true enough, but that is because their profitability has been based on evilness. Reforming them through regulation is so much easier than you imagine, they will be just as happy making a profit in a more ethical market.

The spawn of the Republican reactionaries succeeds in expanding the healthcare compact for those who are destitute, while turning everyone else into profit centers for corporations, just as the Rightwingers at the Heritage Foundation with their individual mandate intended.

In the high court's landmark ruling to uphold President Obama's health care law as constitutional, Romney said that Roberts -- the swing vote in the landmark ruling -- came to a conclusion that was "not accurate" and "not appropriate."

So what was "not accurate" and "not appropriate"... Robert's majority opinion that the mandate is a tax?

Stella,If you look around the world, most universal health care is not delivered through a pure, single-payer scheme like Canada's. Most countries preserve regulated insurance companies, both to sell premium plans to the wealthier, and to administer plans as agents of the government. Many countries like Britian that are mostly government-controled are moving towards greater privitization. The very best results are achieved by the proper public-private mix.

Are you suggeting that most countries in europe and throughout the world operate health care as "profit centers for corporations, just as the Rightwingers at the Heritage Foundation with their individual mandate intended" ?

Speaking of ideological tunnel vision, I watch a CATO Institute conference on the Supreme Court ruling on C-SPAN. Wow, what an eye opener. The lead lawyer representing the states against the mandate said, "Obamacare has never been about health care, it is about liberty." I will remember this statement all my life. To me it illustrates the essense of extremism, which comes from viewing issues through a narrow prism.

The other interesting comment I heard from the lawyers was that before the case proceeded through the states, 99.5% of all constitutional law professors viewed Obamacare as constitutional under the commerce clause. (This guy lives in that world of academics and think tanks.) Anyway, I'm sure he is exaggerating, but it illuminates the sea change that has happened in the courts. Successive Republican presidents have nominated federal judges who are at odds with establishment thinking. The law professors no doubt reflect the legacy of the 50's, 60's and 70's. The Republicans now largely own the courts, are within a whisker of completing a major revolution.

Argh! I wish I still had the link to this, but my PC was stolen and I haven't been able to find it again.

One of our reputable universities completed an extensive study covering several years in regards to Canadians using US health care. They polled: Canadians most likely to use US services, those closest to the border; US hospitals most likely to be used by Canadians-those close to the border and hospitals/clinics that provide specialized or advanced services not common in Canada, and found that, when using the most likely scenario, .11% of Canadians chose US health care over Canadian care.

Canadian health care has 1.8% in administrative costs and 0 profits. Medicare has 3.1% administrative costs and 0 profits. Our current system has 31% administrative costs and 11% profits according to Public Citizen. I think that if you're going to ignore the facts the way Republicans do on this issue, then you're not serious about improving the system.

jonnygothispen wrote: Canadian health care has 1.8% in administrative costs and 0 profits. Medicare has 3.1% administrative costs and 0 profits. Our current system has 31% administrative costs and 11% profits according to Public Citizen. I think that if you're going to ignore the facts the way Republicans do on this issue, then you're not serious about improving the system.

Not sure who you are addressing this post at, but doesn't matter.

Low administrative costs really is a deceptive figure. for instance, medicare would be better served with higher administrative costs, it would pay to put more effort into detecting fraud & excessive billing.

I'm not saying stat is meaningless, the high administrative costs of our private system reflects our dysfunctional mess.

I don't hate the Canadian system, I'd rather have their system than ours. But if you look around the world, you see systems that achieve much better results, in wait times for instance, so why not emulate what works better.

Oh ya, Canadians coming to the U.S. for care says very little other than every system has its strengths and weaknesses. Many more Americans go abroad for medical care for cost effectiveness.

I guess the point was that the health insurance industry meddling jacks administrative costs in their effort to increase profits by dicking around with the doctors, who then also spend more time on paperwork, and communicating with the insurers.

jonnygothispen wrote:I guess the point was that the health insurance industry meddling jacks administrative costs in their effort to increase profits by dicking around with the doctors, who then also spend more time on paperwork, and communicating with the insurers.

Ya, but health insurance purchased through exchanges will be more regularized, less dickering, more bargaining position for the consumer.

jonnygothispen wrote:Doctors candidly admit that it's about money. And they blame insurers for "conditioning" them to practice medicine this way, meaning less efficiently than they believe they should.

The insurance company is not trying to make money for the doctors, they are at odds. Insurance companies have a direct interest in controling costs.

Getting the practice of medicine away from profits-first really has little to do with whether payments come from medicare or an insurance company. Unless you are advocating a foolish government nationalization of medical facilities, we are stuck with influencing, not controling. Obamacare gives the government just as much leverage as medicare to encourage change in the delivery system.

jonnygothispen wrote: Public Citizen believes we'd save $400 billion a year if we switched to single payer from our current system.

For the sake of argument, I'll accept this as true. We are at a starting point of a collossally inefficient mess. Pretty much ANY other system will save money, since we are spending (by far) the most of comparable procedures.

The idea is not to move to a better system, which pure single payer certainly represents. The goal ought to look at how things work in the various models around the world, and use that information as a guide to building the best possible system. The Swiss, French, Japanese systems look great to me. Britian and Canada - cautionary tales.

And then there is the far bigger consideration: which approach is politically expedient? I don't see medicare-for-all being politically viable, the momentum this decade is to cut BACK medicare in coming decade. That may change if obamacare dies, we'll see.

I'm not saying Obamacare is any great shakes coming out of the shoot. Obamacare is first step in a long evolution.

Look, if Romney wins next fall, Obamacare is dead. I will then join you in the long march to single payer.

I do see Obamacare as an improvement for sure. It is all that's politically viable, and barely. I like to call it Nixon/Romney care though.

Someone wrote in the Capital Times, something close to, "It's amazing that a moderate centrist position (Obamacare) is now considered radical socialism" says it all.

I think we need verifiable elections, full public financing of all political campaigns, and an honest media before intelligent conversations about health care (and practically everything else) will be accepted and then become viable policy solutions.

The key battle in health care is to establish that U.S. citizens have a right to health care. The rest are details that can evolve.

Conservatives understand this point very well, which is why they fight Obamacare as existential threat. John Boehner wasn't kidding when he called it "Armegeddon." Once health care is established as right, the dream of an Ayn Rand society is dead.

In truth, conservatives will live to fight another day after universal health care inevitably comes. Conservative principles will continue to influence policy. It is possible to have everybody see a doctor when they need to, and eliminate medical bankruptcies, without becoming a socialist state. But the libertarian dream of free market health care dies forever.

Huckleby wrote:The key battle in health care is to establish that U.S. citizens have a right to health care. The rest are details that can evolve.

Conservatives understood this point very well, which is why they fight Obamacare as existential threat. John Boehner wasn't kidding when he called it "Armegeddon." Once health care is established as right, the dream of an Ayn Rand society is dead.

In truth, conservatives will live to fight another day after universal health care eventually comes. Conservative principles will continue to influence policy. It is possible to have everybody see a doctor when they need to, and eliminate medical bankruptcies, without becoming a socialist state. But the libertarian dream of free market health care dies forever.

Excellent point...

Cornholio, Van Hollow spent a year trying to find voter fraud in Wisconsin. All he came up with were 7 felons voting who shouldn't have. Voter ID doesn't prevent that, the only fraud he could find. Thanks for the opportunity to expose how shallow your point is, or should I say "how deep your pointlessness is?"